@al92653: "Removing a Failed President
by Joel S. Hirschhorn / August 6th, 2007
We no longer can trust Congress to impeach and remove a terrible president. 
The Washington Post has published an op-ed by Robert Dallek that proposes a 
constitutional amendment to allow "ouster by the people" for removing a 
president other than by impeachment or because of incapacity. Considering 
the dismal performance of George W. Bush and his administration and the 
difficulty in obtaining impeachment, this is a fine idea.
Here are the main features of the amendment: The recall procedure would 
begin by obtaining a 60 percent vote in the Senate and House. Public 
pressure on Congress could help it shift decisionmaking to the electorate. 
Congressional support would initiate a national referendum that would be 
open to all eligible voters in state elections. Clearly, it should be done 
fairly quickly. The ballot would simply offer the choice of voting "yes" or 
"no" to the option of removing the president and vice president from office 
immediately. If the majority votes in favor of removal, then the Speaker of 
the House would become president and choose a vice president who would have 
to be confirmed by majorities in the House and Senate.
These are solid ideas that would add a much needed dose of direct democracy 
that would hold presidencies more accountable to Congress and the general 
public than any constitutional mechanism now available.
There must be limits in a functional and fair representative democracy to 
what a president can do. Bush has more than demonstrated that the presidency 
has become much too powerful, able to undermine our Constitution and the 
rule of law, sell out our national sovereignty, put us in incredible debt, 
waste American lives, and walk all over Congress.
There are 18 states that have a recall process for sitting governors. So 
this notion is not absurd. Interestingly, in only two cases have governors 
been removed through citizen action: In North Dakota in 1921, and more 
recently in California in 2003. Recall works, but has not been used 
frivolously.
As Dallek correctly concluded: "The nation should be able to remove by an 
orderly constitutional process any president with an unyielding commitment 
to failed policies and an inability to renew the country's hope." Amen.
The removal process has the distinct advantage of not immobilizing Congress 
when it pursues impeachment. More important, removing a president through a 
national referendum that involves many millions of citizens, rather than 
simply through members of Congress, makes incredible sense. If we the people 
really are sovereign, then we should have the constitutional right to remove 
a president.
Sadly, Dallek did not also support using a mechanism already in our 
Constitution to propose amendments that are unlikely to come from Congress. 
for the purpose of proposing amendments. Only one specific requirement is 
given and that has been met, but Congress has refused to call an Article V 
convention, though more than two-thirds of state legislatures have asked for 
one and even though Article V says that it "shall" do so.
If Congress has refused to honor Article V and give we the people what we 
have a constitutional right to - an amendment convention operating outside 
the control of Congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court - then it 
seems unlikely to propose a new amendment that would give the nation a 
national referendum to remove a president and vice-president. Each of the 
two major parties will fear that someone of their party could be removed 
from office and that a Speaker from the other party might become president.
Pressure could be mounted now on Congress to obtain the new amendment for 
removing a president or it could be mounted on Congress to obey the current 
Constitution and give us an Article V convention. Choosing the second option 
has the huge advantage that by obtaining the nation's first Article V 
convention we would also have the opportunity to consider other sensible 
amendments. Fears of an Article V convention have been nurtured over the 
decades by groups now wielding power over Congress through lobbying and 
campaign contributions. Such fears are nonsense. Whatever an Article V 
convention proposes must be ratified in exactly the same way that all 
proposals from Congress are ratified.
The second point, therefore, in favor of working in favor of an Article V 
convention is that Congress has also largely failed we the people. Making it 
obey Article V and give the nation an alternative means of national 
discussion of possible constitutional amendments that a corrupt Congress 
will never propose makes all the sense in the world. For example, there is 
serious attention being given to the idea of electing Supreme Court 
Justices, rather than continue allowing political considerations to choose 
them. But neither major party would want to lose its power to shape the 
court, so that amendment will not be proposed by Congress.
Friends of the Article V Convention has the sole mission of obtaining the 
nation's first convention and will not support any specific amendment. But 
every group that now advocates some type of political or government reform 
that could be obtained through a constitutional amendment should join and 
support this umbrella group.
Joel S. Hirschhorn has a new book, Delusional Democracy: Fixing the Republic 
Without Overthrowing the Government, which supports constitutional 
conventions and other peaceful ways to restore American democracy. To join 
the pro-convention effort or discuss issues write the author: 
<email_address> Read other articles by Joel, or visit Joel's website."
    @jpastore: "<quote>
What? They are already "immobile."
The solution would be to-also-remove all sitting in Congress by
having a new-Congressional-election in which none sitting can
participate and continue in their offices.
Failing to remove a failed President is failure also.
The "yes" or "no" vote of a referendum would apply to both the
executive and legislative branches with, if "yes" for removal be the
decision, a new election following immediately.
Once the date of such a referendum is set, contestants could start
campaigning immediately."
{'source': 'USENET', 'other_information': '{"reply_count": 1, "forum_name": "alt.terrorism.world-trade-center.20150203.mbox"}', 'file': 'data/output/usenet-alt.terrorism.parquet'}